The effing Ipad!

This recent discussion in class about the ipad literally was the straw that broke the camels back. Prof Prichard talked about this constant technological conversion that we see occurring in this world, and to be honest its absurd. When will it end. If we now have this awkwardly big piece of technology that people are carrying around so that they don’t have to carry a phone ipod and lap top, where does it end in terms of what we as people consider lazy.

This reminds me of Ellen Degeneres stand up, where she says the way that our society has evolved is just crazy. We have become so lazy in this world. She talks about how we no longer want to suck on tick tacks, but now have breath mint strips that simply dissolve on our tongue for us. Are we serious? I must say it all sounds better coming from the true source so:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HufW01FRheg

We don’t even realize how lazy society has become because its all that we know today, but for those of us left (not consumed by this infection of technology) its easy to see that there are of course easier ways to make things possible but do we really want this for ourselves. I feel I have exhausted this topic really, but it continues to come up and drive me crazy. I feel I am the only person in this world today who does not have an ipod. I know that if I jumped on the bandwagon I could easily fall in to the trap of not knowing what a CD is anymore, but why should we. What was so hard about changing a CD to begin with if you wanted to listen to a different artist.

This Ipad we see coming out is just a new way to combine more things together so we become even more obsessed with an object with a screen. Here is a story to show the problems these “ipads” and “iphones” are having on us as humans!:

I went to the bar with friends, and I look to my right, instead of our friend conversing with us in this social atmosphere, he is fishing on his iphone!! I said “holy shit! If you want to go fishing go fishing! He said, “Why go fishing in the cold when I can do it from a bar?”

This illustrates the problems that are evolving. We soon are going to be an obese lazy society who no longer knows how to do anything hands on because instead of real interaction in life we have these stupid iphones and ipads to do them for us! Where does it end!

Why the distant communication?

It fascinates me to see what can really be done with words, or not be done. In class on Friday we saw that communication can of course be done without the physical act of talking (silent prof.), but this is what I fear our entire society has come to. We understand now that through cell phones, computers, and text messaging, there is no real reason to physically talk with people anymore. I suppose we must understand that yes these new forms of communication are successful ways of getting our messages across, but are they most efficient.

We talk so much about how we are accepting to be misinterpreted when we write instead of speak, because we understand the context in this written communication can be drastically changed. So I suppose the question is why do we as society feel the need to talk less, personally, and is this written communication really doing the same things with words as we could be doing compared to the act of speaking.

This new method of communication is responsible for the foundation of these second personalities we see within people who have “screens” to hide themselves behind. As we discovered in class a person on plurk could be different from their blog page and different from the way they portray themselves in class. Is technology responsible for this in a way? If people only understood one way to be “real” it would be because there is only one way for them to be interpreted, causing less space for taking things out of context, or reading a person the “wrong way”. We continuously find more distant ways to communicate with people. It is now possible to text message a person through your computer. (This is hysterical- directions)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZN7zSDLMosM

Why would you text through a computer I wonder? If you don’t have a cell phone is a phone call so far fetched that we have now created a way to enter this text-messaging world without being apart of the cell phone world? Is it because this is in fact a faster way to contact a person? If so, when did this happen? I suppose I find it interesting that people are more accepting of the possibility to be misinterpreted through written communication, than taking the time to physically speak to a person when possible, and getting things “right” the first time.

There truly is so many things we can do with words, but its strange Derrida says that words can be spoken and received with an absent receiver and the words will still reach the receiver, but is this receiver receiving what has been sent? I have decided that through this distant manner of communication, the receiver is never receiving exactly what is sent, and majority of the time I don’t feel the confusion is necessary.

What is truth? Do we underestimate it?

Recently in class we have discussed this idea of “what is truth” who are we really behind “screens” and which one of us is our real self. I find this to be a fascinating yet mind stretching phenomena. Why does this question really even exist? Why are we as individuals not the same person whether it be in person or behind screens? Are we this superficial to believe that there is no person who is the same on both levels? Perhaps we see ourselves as obtaining this trait and then project in on those around us. Of course we all have a different side to us as people, but is this necessarily something we would question our true personality over? In a sense I believe having this multiple attitudes and beliefs is in fact what makes up our true self.

When I think what is truth, I believe this concept is whatever you as a person believe it to be. Truth can be something you force yourself to believe, something that is not entirely true and is accepted as truth, or even a blatant lie that is simply believed. Truth is however a person interprets what is being told in my eyes. Someone in class talked about sterotypes and the difference between where they would place themselves and where society would place them. For a certain individual, where they are to place themselves is their truth, this is where they belong in their eyes, but what of society. If society feels they belong somewhere else, isn’t this a truth in societies perspective wherever they place this individual. The lens can change and alter what the truth is of the same situation I think, and I believe this is the key when we think about this term.

It interests me that after we read Derrida we find that ideas and words and the likes can be moved from one person to another where the receiver may be physically absent at the time the idea is trying to be relayed. From this starting point to its receivers ending point, there can be a drastic change in meaning, tone, or context. The same is true in dealing with people. As a person tries to portray themselves through blogging, plurking, facebook etc, there personalities are interrupted with misinterpretation, which is what I believe Derrida understands happens when we delay the relay of communication. This of course than brings me back to Austin who says what really are words? If there is so much room for interpretation and misguided truth, what do these words really mean, and what should they mean?

This of course brings us full circle I suppose to why communicate? We must be accepting of misinterpretation, whether this means risking being placed in the wrong stereotype or are assumed a different person behind “screens”. I like to believe that the same person is projected for me through plurk as anyone would see in class, but I wonder if this is what others think? If I had a name that had nothing to do with my own name on plurk, would the class be able to link my plurking thoughts to the thoughts and statements I make in class? This topic is unanswerable I think for me because there are number ways to look at these terms, and what the meaning overall means to anyone can be significantly different.

technology: What has it done to us

Today class discussion brought me to a new way of thinking, in the context of technology, and whether this phenomenon has a positive or negative impact on the lives of people who are “infected” with this virus of constant “connection.”

I suppose in some sense we can say this is in fact a connection, but to what, and to whom? Is this “connection” really a connection with anything beyond ourselves? In class today someone brought up that this idea of technology and video games has evolved the population in too quite the self-centered character. This I believe to be true. So with that, I ask if this connection is really a connection at all? To engage and interact with people physically is a key determinant in really connecting with a person. People say that you can equally connect with people through writing, as we hear from Derrida, but I argue if that is really the truth.

When personally interacting with a person versus a screen, you are not only understanding a person on a more personal level, but at the same time you are exercising your social skills. For children to be learning schooling techniques through computers, they are not properly developing the skills that are required in order to get to know those around you, and really be “connected” with their society. I would challenge the belief that video games or computer tools, can give you the same skills that a real one on one conversation or lesson could give.

When I think about the most important thing when it comes to meeting a person, it’s the personality they have and the way they interact with other people. Isn’t this what we base relationships off of? To enjoy spending time with a person and getting to know what there about is the crucial part. If we continuously train our children and future generations that anything they need to know they can “google” or learn through an online source or video game, people will lose the desire to interact with others, and eventually lose social skills all together. What will then become of this world if we as society no longer feel that we need relationships? Because honestly that is what we are saying when we continuously depend on the Internet and our games to show us what the world is

Response to Austin/Shrivers/context

Context seems to be a much more important term then most of us may have known. For instance today in class we saw the videos of Tom and Jerry, the whole mood/picture/feeling changes when you are told the entire story behind the clip you see.

In Shivers its obvious there are multiple ways to view what is going on. The perspective that shows this awful creature living within a human and driving them to sexually assault others does not portray a positive image. Yet in class we discuss whether at the end this “creature” really was negative once everyone became infected. I would argue that even though the people of the community seemed “normal” or “functional” after the entire community was infected, they aren’t in fact normal, therefore to me this is not a positive outcome.

When I think about the pattern in which a person spreads this infection, it’s anything but positive. These sexual assaults take place against a persons will, and this isn’t even taking in to consideration the actions that some of the people take who are infected against those who are not. Looking at the character Nick he murders the scientist because the scientist is trying to save himself from this creature burning his face. He has no sense within himself to look outside of the situation and realize that killing a man over this “thing” is not the right thing to do, which shows abnormality, especially considering what this “thing” is. In this instance we can say for sure, that this creature is not doing any good for anyone in this situation.

I suppose the bottom line of it all is that it can depend on what point we look at the community. If we were to only look at the end of the movie where everyone leaves the community looking great all as friends, then yes we could say this movie and whatever events may have taken place had a happy ending. In order to come to this ending though, the whole movie taken in to account, I could not say these people are “functioning normally.” This goes for multiple other scenarious as well. We talked about the movie “How to Lose a Guy In Ten Days,” if we didn’t understand the context behind why Kate Hudson acts the way she does all we would see is a crazy girl in the movie who has no ideas on how to handle men. But this of course is not the perspective we are to take. We are to understand why she is acting the way she is instead of simply believing she is just

This could be a stretch, but bringing Austins writing into the swing of things, he discusses that we read things based on how they are portrayed (ex: punctuation, capital letters etc.) this is how we as the audience understand what is being said to us. If we look at Shivers only from the end, these people are portrayed happy and “normal” but when you look deeper (when Austin brings in the idea of whether what is being said has intent of being truthful) we are not so sure that the people of the community are “normal” or even happy for that matter, because is this new being really them?